Merit vs Quotas

Theoretically, the efficiency argument also applies to employment quotas. If a government allocates jobs on the basis of a quota system instead of on merit, the textbook argument is that it causes inefficiency in the public sector.

In this context, the decision of the cabinet to extend the quota system for allocation of federal government jobs for the next 20 years is not a step any economist will endorse. But good economics is not always good politics in developing countries. Moreover, in a trade-off between efficiency and equity, governments are sometimes compelled to sacrifice efficiency for equity. The debate on the decision of the cabinet essentially revolves around the relative pros and cons of efficiency and equity.

The protagonists of the quota system have argued that a quota system in the federal services will ensure representation of all the regions of the country in the civil service. It will promote harmony among the federating units and protect the interests of the underdeveloped areas. Critics say that continuation of the quota system amounts to sacrificing the standards of the civil service as well as inefficient use of resources. They also maintain that it kills meritocracy, and is hence responsible for low-performing public service in Pakistan.

Before commenting on the extension of the quota system, I would like to raise some basic questions regarding the concept of meritocracy. Can we see merit in isolation without taking into account its socio-economic context? Is it not a product of its environment? Does it exist at all in the practical world? Is it not merely rhetoric? Can it be achieved in a society characterised by deep economic and social inequalities? To my mind, these questions can be answered through the complex relationship that exists between merit and the milieu.

Merit is a function of the socio-economic environment. It is now empirically proven that the children of literate and affluent families have far greater chances to succeed in their academic and professional careers. Exceptions may be there but are rare. A child born to poor and illiterate parents can turn out to be a genius and climb the ladder of economic and social mobility quickly. But as a general rule, a child born in an impoverished family has little chance to shine in life and rise above the social and economic levels of his/her parents.

Merit, as we understand and implement it, is a big façade. It hardly exists in underdeveloped countries, which are characterised by deep socio-economic inequalities. The murder of merit starts the day a child is conceived. If the mother is poor, malnourished and illiterate, she will seldom give birth to a healthy baby. If the poor guy is able to survive the pangs of birth and is lucky enough to land in a public school, devoid of the facilities that are enjoyed by privately-run elite schools, will he/she be able to compete with his rich counterparts in the labour market operating on the principle of efficiency and meritocracy? Probably not!

 A child born in a remote rural area does not even have the educational facilities that are enjoyed by his urban counterpart (quota based on domicile). The children of those from minority communities may not have access to social and economic opportunities like those from dominant groups (quota for minorities). A female child may be in a disadvantageous position compared to male children due to gender discrimination (quota for women). A physically challenged person does not possess the capabilities of a healthy person (quota for the special persons).

Hence, there is a valid case for the allocation of quota to safeguard the interests of undeveloped areas and underprivileged sections of society. At least at the theoretical level, the weight of the argument tilts towards equity and not efficiency especially in a society that is unable to provide equality of opportunity to its people. The quota in public-sector employment thus compensates ‘to some extent’ for such unevenness.

In this context, the decision of the cabinet to further extend the quota in the federal services for 20 years is a commendable step in view of the deep socio-economic disparities prevalent in our society. But in order to realise the objectives of the quota system, its administration needs to be made more transparent.

It is not difficult to come across instances where those who studied at the best schools of the country managed to get allocations in the CSS on the strength of domiciles of AJK, Balochistan or Fata merely on the ground that their grandparents/parents had lived in these regions in the past. There is also a need to amend the rules for the determination of domicile. Only those who study for at least 10 years in underdeveloped areas should be entitled to the benefits of the quota system. Comprehensive rules and procedures need to be put in place for the effective administration of the quota system.

Undeniably, talent is determined by wealth, income level, and surroundings ‘merit rewards people for having privileged parents. And this brings us to the second point. Domicile should not be the only variable for allocation of public sector jobs, and income and social deprivations should be afforded more importance.

 For example, bracketing the son or daughter of a poor labourer or farmer with one of a bureaucrat, professional, landlord or businessman just on the basis of the domicile of a province is not fair treatment at all. A sufficient amount of data, based on household and poverty surveys, is available with the government and can be utilised for the identification and verification of low-income households.